• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Scientology should not be prejudged

In response to Soloman Matsas’ letter about the Wednesday insert in the Daily Bruin titled “Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science,” I would like to say to students: find out for yourself (“Scientology misleading and manipulative,” Viewpoint, May 23).

All people are entitled to their own opinions, but dare I say there is much more to the story than the tired lines of Matsas’ letter.

Dianetics and scientology, like other fields of knowledge, are concerned only with results – improvement of mental ability and intelligence. There are 8 million people worldwide who have used L. Ron Hubbard’s works in these fields to produce such positive results as improving their intelligence and reducing stress in their lives. Tens of thousands of those people are right here in Los Angeles, each with their own story.

So if you’re not one to believe everything you hear about others’ religious beliefs or actions, then find out for yourself about this revolutionary – and statistically workable – technology of the human mind.

Austin Mattison President, Student Scientologists in Action

No evidence given in conservative viewpoint

In his letter, Dan Williams speaks of Republicans and conservatives in almost religious tones (“Rational thinking found in conservative voice,” Viewpoint, May 24). He blasts the left for crying racism, intolerance and insensitivity with a disregard for facts. He then goes on to blame corroded schools, a culture of victimhood, class warfare and bloated government on what he calls “liberal policy.” He provides no facts, simply declares the situation to be so.

How does a chemical engineering student get away with this kind of logical process? It is the narrowness of conservative policy, not the openness to creative problem solving fostered in a liberal climate, that leads to corroded schools (chemists will use their own metaphor). It is the conservatives, hiding away in their gated communities, hoarding their treasure, who foment racism and class warfare, not the willingness of liberals to question authority until they come up with a solution.

How I would like Williams to explain how conservative solutions actually solve our complex social problems? I dare him to come up with even one that isn’t so simplistic that it causes a greater problem.

Frances Goff Staff and alumna

Construction should focus on team, not stadium

Jeff Eisenberg’s column about how a new stadium would produce winning teams is comparable to telling a poor craftsman that his tools are to blame (“New stadium could reignite football team,” Sports, May 23).

The Bruins have been playing .500 ball the last three years. Now, who has been the coach during this time? Right, Toledo. 

Toledo was an outstanding coach his first couple of years, but that was with Terry Donahue recruits (i.e., McNown, Farmer, etc.)

I believe that, in his heart, Toledo wants to win and is trying to do that, but it isn’t working. He has a tendency to blame everyone but himself. He has shown that he has no control over the team with the disabled parking fiasco in ’99, last year’s team going from potential national champion to conference doormat, Foster’s suspension, and, worst of all three, consecutive loses to USC with last year’s game being shut out. 

When you finish your finals, get a copy of last year’s UCLA-USC game. Look at the faces of the UCLA players. They looked beaten before the game started. Sometimes I wonder if that loss was a conspiracy by the team to get rid of Toledo.

Just read the write-up on the new AD. His forte seems to be in building and improving facilities and not building champion teams. If Guerrero likes constructing, let him construct a winning football team by finding a new coach and not worrying about a new stadium. UCLA will be playing mediocre football in a new stadium as long as Toledo is the coach.

A new stadium by the Staples Center might just have an adverse effect on the football team. The new stadium will be a shared location with a pro football team along with, guess who? Right! USC! USC will go to the new stadium as well. It is still closer to their campus than to the UCLA campus. We’ll go right back to sharing a stadium with our arch rivals. Moving to the Rose Bowl was suppose to give UCLA a home field. I think it did, but it never improved the team.

I hate football season. Following the Bruins is asking too much from this mere mortal. I’m hoping that this will be the last year of Toledo and perhaps in a few years UCLA will be in the race for a national championship.

Wayne M. Cutler Alumnus Class of ’67